Ayn Rand, her followers (among whom is Alan Greenspan) have caused more death and suffering in the world in the past couple decades then any Muslims or Christian has in the past 300 years.
wow, no two sentence comments and they don't consist of "you greedy pig" or "share the wealth" clearly people influenced by Ayn Rand are much more civilised and informed than lazy collective altruist's.
Maybe the anti-Rand-ites can explain something about how being selfish and making money is bad in itself.
We'll ignore the fact that Rand was an atheist and that the Bible and Jesus actually hold the "rich man" or a person who earns his wealth to be just as good or bad as any olther.
If a person, call him Steve J., works to make millions of $, employs 1000s of people and makes goods more affordable, is he still evil? He has to please employees and customers to make those millions.
News! Nobody I know has any problem whatsoever practicing the "virtue (?!) of selfishness." Rand, a narcissistic psychopath, continues to attract "disciples" as duplicitous as she with the likes of Allen Greenspan (master bankster), Ben Bernanke (Greenspan's protege), Geithner, Paulson, etc. Her duties toward others (she doesn't believe that she has any: Kant be damned!!) stops dead at her notorious dollar sign while disguising herself as a philosophic friend of humanity: Greed is Good?! OCCUPY!
"Where does envy and covetousness rank against selfishness and greed" Envy and coveting can be a catalyst fo greater things. You envy the neighbor's clothing and you work harder to earn more. This produces more goods, so abundance reduces prices and more people can have them. If you envy somebody so much, you create a movement, a business, a charity, a new invention.
Mimetic desire leads to bloody competition whereby the ends are used to justify the means: one's ends justify one's INJUSTICES & it propels one into the narcissistic world of pride, envy, greed, revenge, violence, hatred, war, torture & death. Vanity & corruption have plagued our species since the beginning of time. Our demise is certain unless we realize that Statism vs. Corporatism is a false dichotomy & both have the exact same ends & both use the exact same means: To enslave us. OCCUPY!.
@BrotherWoody1 "OCCUPY" I sahall say this, your term implies you have the same idea as your "Statism vs. Corporatism ".
"desire leads to bloody competition " I left of the mimetic as even those fighting against your gov't vs corp idea are also mimicing others blindly.
But as human are a wide variety and the businessman's self interest leads him to please his customers, his employees and his creditor/shareholders, selfishness leads to self preservation, which leads to doing the right thing.
@bsabruzzo Yes, "Corporatism" is fine too. More specifically, I'm against a corrupt government that demands to be bought by the FED & the international banking & corporate monopolies that it serves. Corporatism & Statism are one & the same thing (& have been throughout our history: where's Andrew Jackson when WE really need him?!) & I'm against them both. We need a new politics. I'm for Ron Paul in 2012 & I support both the Tea Party & the Occupiers. It's Paul's candidacy that serves them both.
You do realize that the ones occupying Wall Street are progressives by majority, correct? The general sentiment is that the government needs to take more control of banking. Why would you support them after saying all that you have?
Selfishness works to an extent, but I believe one problem for the masses is that of the "poor and rich". The poor multiply, dividing their wealth between large families, whilst the rich ensure their wealth will remain for generations to come at the cost of population. As a result, those born rich are open to many opportunities pre-established by their forefathers that the poor are not. Is this unfair? No. Does it seem unfair to those disadvantaged? Quite.
@justicetrooper Tell me, where did your expectation for fairness originate. Is it really realistic or even desirable to expect an equal result, regardless of external circumstances, and in spite of the level of thought, discipline and planning individuals choose to invest in their lives?
@fzqlcs No, it's not realistic, although "fairness" has often been legislated, enforced & adjudicated: it's called civil & criminal law. Sure, we have too many laws & too little liberty. But unless your prepared to take up arms against a police state that will crush you, you might think about joining the 99% of us who don't quite buy the abstract legal notions of "fairness." We live the unfairness. We're being crushed by the unfairness of all the political ideologies. Will you help us? OCCUPY!
@justicetrooper how is this not unfair? a child born into disadvantage through no fault of his own, forced to live a life where he has poor access to education, healthcare, and other necessities of life? remember the top 20% own 80% of all the wealth. the top 0.01% of america earn $2 million per year.
Pareto Principle? Really? If you knew more about the whole 80/20 thing you'd be less likely to try and use it as an argument for more government. The Pareto Principle applies no matter the form or control of government. Twenty percent of the people end up with eighty percent of the wealth. Question is, do they get that wealth through innovation and productive activity or through hand outs and gifts from political allies? Also, as they acquire that wealth, do they better others?
@100kby35 I will agree that it's unfair for someone to bring a child into the world that they can't provide for. However, I don't see it being unfair for people to have child. If you follow the trend of the big poor family and the small rich one, after a couple generations the rich will be outnumbered no matter which way you slice it. If wealth is earned through willing trade (and not stolen in bailouts) it seems perfectly fair to use this wealth one's own offspring.
@justicetrooper But it isn't us that provides for us, it's the Earth that gives to all ends to give us what we need. We just shape it from out mind into things beyond what we need.
@justicetrooper In most socialist countries, rich parents are allowed to give more or less freely to their children. However, these socialist countries provide government assistance to children born to poor families. This is to ensure these children, through no fault of their own, do not starve to death simply because they were unfortunately enough to be born into the wrong family. Under a pure capitalist system, wealth is all private and street children starve to death.
@100kby35 Correction: In socialist countries money is taken from taxes without the direct consent of tax-payers(Which I would consider theft) to pay for a parent to raise a child they shouldn't have had. In pure capitalism only the willing pay for the poor. This is called charity. If someone has a child, by what right do they reach into another person's wallet without permission? If it weren't thievery, it'd be charity. However, it's not charity.
@justicetrooper If I were a dictator, I would direct public funds to disadvantaged children not via the parents but directly to the child e.g. through food provided in schools, as is done in some countries. In America these funds are directed to the parents. It's imperfect, but it is what it is.
@justicetrooper If a poor parent produces a child he cannot afford, you are blaming the parent, but blaming the parent does nothing to help the child. The reality is that people have sex first and don't think about the consequences. You paint the picture of the dumb and impulsive parent who has sex and then steals from another to feed the child. The parent has nothing to do with this. It is the child who is vulnerable. It is the child who needs to "steal" otherwise the child starves to death.
@justicetrooper If I could not afford to have a child, I would not. But when you say that a man who cannot afford to have a child should not have a child, you are going against the free market. Most poor children are born to parents who have had consensual sex. The man and woman agree to the exchange of sexual services. We have an exchange of services in a market economy for sex. For you to impose your morality on free market trade is socialist.
@100kby35 Let me reword this for you then, bro. If you have a child and can not afford it, you should accept the consequences of that decision. If you can find a way to raise the kid, cool. If not, prepare for consequences. I'd suggest not having a kid when you know you can't support it. If people want to cause unnecessary suffering, that's their fun. You want kids, but have no college fund, then the kids will pay student loans or just go without a degree. Individual choice and responsibility.
its interesting t me how terms are used so ambiguously like"hard work" and 'job providers". The premise from which one intitates his or her values is the key. if you believe that man created the things by which he becomes wealthy, then you can justify the concept of selfishness, however, if you are to believe that God created everything and man has a duty when he obtains wealth from his labor sufficient for his life, does he have a resonsibility to others regarding the excess?
@autofill67 you are exactly right. such explains why faith and reason are at their very root incompatible. one must be held as an absolute. i had no choice but to become an atheist when I fully grasped this stark and somewhat harsh realization.
It's actually a very bad book. Her philosophical mistakes are readily manifest from the Greeks onward. Her moral vision: I am the center of OUR universe. Her politics were solipsistic incoherence & self serving impotence. Her economics derived from her narcissistic psychopathy & she had NO duties to whom she deemed unworthy. She was a vile creature who occasionally latched on to some clever ideas & had a way with words. Follow her to where? Her dollar sign grave? Have a heart. OCCUPY!
@thatlogicalguy You're quite correct. One can like her arguments and dislike her as a person. In my case, I dislike both & the ad hominems are a cathartic way for me to express it. It's terribly difficult to pick her bones & stay within anything like 500 words. Thanks for the call.
Rand speaks in absolutes. As in someone can't chose to be both selfish or altruistic at times and still be moral. The problem lies in extremes of either choice. If you are ONLY selfish or ONLY altruistic. There is a happy medium in which you obtain maximum benefit for yourself as well as others.
@bungerman1000 It's not absolute. In this video, she is trying to explain an idea and the consequences. I don't think most non-violent or voluntarist type people would try to prevent anyone being charitable. There is nothing wrong with charity etc. I think the point is that charitable acts shouldn't be obligatory. It's a bit like property rights. You can defend your property, but you can also choose to not defend it if you want.
I think morals are absolutes. They may be personal as in your morals and mine have no need to be the same, but to hold something as a moral it has to be an absolute. I think morals are hierarchical in nature. It is immoral to kill but self defense is moral even if it results in death. So killing is subservient to self defense. Being selfish is subservient to the moral that the initiation of force is immoral, so be selfish but don't initiate force. Logically solid morals.
One must look out for oneself and ones family before being able to help others. This is common sense. Once able to be charitable only after ones own house is in order is a personal matter. Give according to ones own situation or belief. Taxing the middle class is theft by force. Charity begins at home.
Taxing anyone, poor, rich or otherwise is theft. Theft implies the use of force for without force it wouldn't be considered theft but a willingly given gift. I wholly agree with your overall point though, just hoped to refine things a little. Hope you don't mind.
Isn't selfishness not "caring for one's own intersts" rather the
"EXCESSIVE concern for one's material interests?" Isn't Ayn Rand basically Reagan era "greed is good" limited for few years then crashed. We are socail creatures (we need others). It says in Bible. Is Rand trying to refute the Bible? Was she Christian even? This is not a Christian teaching. The young man who stays at home and helps his invalid mother IS morally superior to the young man you leaves her for his own carreer.
@tmmy773 Google "define:selfish",greed is neither good or bad since its a basic human drive that everyone has,it is the reason why you want more,she was an Atheist,and you are missing the point of selfishness which is what this video is about,people not understanding what selfishness is that's why you are making bible/invalid mother argument.
@olhsaoagpaigfbp i'm trying to answer the questions / ideas in the video. She is an Aethiest..how did i realize that wo looking her bio? I would like a flat screen tv How is that greed? How can you say greed isn't wanting "excessive" material goods? ok to have things within reason. If i buy 2 flat screen tvs not instead give to charity is greedy. Avarice (greed) is one of 7 deadly sins. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (PS 11:10) Is she wiser than Bible and book of wisom?
@tmmy773 How is that not greed? you want flat screen TV and there are people who don't have food why don't you settle for old CRT and donate rest of the money or for that matter no TV at all?She might be wiser than the dude that wrote that part of bible,don't bring religion in the argument because that is your belief not fact ,might as well have a Muslim argue that she wasn't right cause she ate pork.
@tmmy773 ok another case...if a man lives in a poor desert country and ppl in village are starving...and buys a flat-screen tv...that is greed unless the person first buys food for the hungry and then buys a small tv...his money is property...even then he should first think about how he can help others...being rich has a great responsilbility. I give some to charity even i am poor myself...and i have a tv i bought at goodwill for $7.
Why should he buy food for them first? Are they not responsible for their own lives just like the man who is going to buy the TV is responsible for his own? Does their sheer existence mean that others must provide for them if they refuse or are unable to do so themselves? What about the workers who get a wage for making the TV and feed themselves are they any less deserving of being fed than those who haven't provided a service to feed themselves?
The issue comes when you wish to tell me that I MUST give to charity. I MUST give a portion of the income that I earned from "the sweat of my brow" to anyone. I applaud your charity though I think you'd be better off using that money to further your skill set and increase your knowledge then use that to move out of poverty. But I wouldn't dream of forcing you to do that and neither should you wish to force to be charitable personally or through the State. That is immoral.
@KaelinSaint i think forcing charity (i.e. government taxs) is right. the reality is that there is not enough kindness in this world. if capitalists had their way, there will be nothing for the poor. disabled people will be left to starve on the streets. children born to poor parents will also be left to beg and starve on the streets. their labor will be sold to capitalists who will exploit them in brothels to cater to pedophiles. the only thing stopping this is government.
Do you have any proof or at least some amount of evidence that this is in fact the case? I'll do what you just did and make an unprovable statement and ask you to argue it. About three years ago I started gargling gasoline every other Friday and have done so ever since. This ritual has prevented the invasion of Earth by aliens from the planet Zarbak. Without me guzzling that gasoline, you'd have been on the wrong side of an anal probe for the last several years. Prove me wrong!
@KaelinSaint capitalism leads to exploitation of children. it happened during the industrial revolution when children were used to work in factories and they were exploited. laws had to be introduced to stop this. these laws were government intervention, and necessary government intervention. asia is now undergoing its own industrial revolution and we see not only child labor but also child prostitution as capitalists pimp these poor kids off to pedophiles. free markets!
@100kby35 actually children were working before the industrial revolution, it's capitalism that gave their parents the opportunity to send them to school rather than the mine or the shop. The side you're on leads time and again to those children working again instead of learning. Child labor and underage prostitution have been prevalent in most of the world for most of history... Capitalism is the way to fix that, it is not the cause, it wasn't there to be the cause...
@daPlumber702 Capitalism is the way to fix child prostitution? I find that hard to believe when socialists are the ones arguing for government to intervene in the education market to set teaching standards to stipulate that children not be exposed to rape. However, my right-wing capitalist friends want government completely out of the education market, thereby allowing each parent to decide for himself what to teach his child, which logically means a pedophile parent can rape his child.
@100kby35 Child prostitution--like most forms of child labor,are most apt to happen in societies so poor that the family needs the labor of children to survive. Capitalism produces so much wealth that families can live without sending the children out to work. Capitalism can't save all children from evil,but those children who would be laboring--including those in the sex trade, because of poverty would be saved.
@davijeph Have you checked to see whether or not the rate/amount of child labor was increasing or decreasing in the decades preceding legal action against child labor?
@clemonsx90 Do you mean World wide or within the western Liberal Democracies? If you are implying that child labour was decreasing before child labour laws you would be wrong. It's true millions of citizens in many countries were able to find employment in factories because of the industrial revolution making great wealth for the few but it spawning poverty and environmental disaster for the many. It was hard won democracy, two world wars and a revolution in Russia that redressed the balance.
@100kby35 "capitalism leads to exploitation of children. ... the industrial revolution .... laws had to be introduced to stop this"
AsI said, statistics don't actually bare this out, as the number of non-agricultural jobs done by children were on the decrease long before the laws were made, due to increased productivity, competition in the workplace and industry and innovation in technology.
Yet today children are still asked to clean their rooms... darn that child labor.
@KaelinSaint I had an argument with a right-wing capitalist yesterday during lunch. he believes that there should be no public schools and that all schools should be private so that parents can choose what education is right for their own child rather than having the state (i.e. the people) choose. this logically meant that a pedophile parent could put his little daughter into a pedophile school and rape her and then cite sex education. rape of children is the logical consequence of capitalism
@100kby35 what a boob you are... There's so much wrong with your idea of free choice of schools that it's hard to know where to start. Basically, you just need to grow up and learn.
Oh, you're a troll. I'll feed you later troll. Remind me though cause I may forget about you. I wouldn't want the little troll to starve. I really applaud the attempt at logic though. It's better than the typical drivel of most trolls. Funny. Again, don't starve troll, I'll feed you later.
@100kby35 According to the pubic school system, if the pedophile gets into public office, he will use the guns of government to force all children to go to pedophile school. Thus, child-rape is the logical consequence of your position.
@shamgar001 My position is socialism, i.e. rule by society, i.e. rule by the people, i.e. democracy. If a pedophile were to get a government position whereby he introduced child rape into public schools, he is accountable to the politician who gave him his job and the politician is accountable to the voting public who will vote against pedophiles. Under pure capitalism, each parent decides if he wants to rape his child. The people or society have no say.
@100kby35 The freedom to rape a child inplies that children are their parent's property. I'm a libertarian and we believe in the principle of self ownership,so sexual slavery like other forms of slavery would not be allowed. Capitalism also starts with the principle of self ownership and while a child lacks the full rights of an adult,in those rare cases where the parents are sick,he still has rights. By the way,surely you know that the public schools has more than a few pedophiles.
@shamgar001 As Margaret Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society, only individuals and family." This means that if a parent rapes his child, it is the individual or family unit that makes this decision and social morality cannot stop it. Imposing social morality e.g. mandating that children not have sex before they are 18 is a socialist policy as it takes the morality of society and its implementation constraints the liberties of the individual and family unit.
@100kby35 That's incorrect. If someone murders their child, the government punishes them, not because "society" has decided it's wrong, but because it is the natural right of a child not to be killed.
Likewise, a child has a right not to be raped, and your assertion that libertarianism would allow for that is beyond ignorant.
@shamgar001 i went to the Libertarian Party website and here is their policy on education, suggesting parents decide: "Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market.... Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government."
@100kby35 That doesn't mean schools should be allowed to violate the rights of children. That's like arguing that if you don't want the government to regulate sex, then people have to be allowed to murder their partner during sex.
@shamgar001 Having sex with a child harms the child. How do we know this? Because society accepts it, and society enforces this knowledge through government. However, pure right-wing capitalists do not believe in society. They believe in individual choice and parents choosing for their children what is right. (Margaret Thatcher: "There is no society, only individuals and family.")
@shamgar001 I want to protect children. It is people like Lindsay Ashford who scare me. The scientific literature on whether exposing children to sex is harmful is patchy. I personally believe children should not be sexualized based on moral grounds. I have a wish to protect the innocence of children. The concept of innocence is an abstract social concept, not some objective biochemical concept. Hence we need to impose social values on individuals to stop child abuse. We need socialism.
@100kby35 "this logically meant that a pedophile parent could... " I think you used the word logically incorrectly.
As the US Constitution is set-up to protect innocence from harm, and to protect individuals liberty when it is infringed upon by others, the example you gave up would end up as that parent being arrested and jailed, along with that school's entire membership...
@bsabruzzo If a parent in a pure capitalist country were to teach his daughter sex education and proceed to rape her, if the state intervenes citing the US Constitution then this is a socialist country since there is state intervention into the education market to dictate and enforce social morals. In a pure capitalist country, the parent decides how to educate his children. Hence the parents chooses whether to homeschool, chooses which faith the school is, how sex education is taught, etc.
@100kby35 "citing the US Constitution then this is a socialist country " First, socialism is where the gov't runs the people. Second, this country (USA) is a Constitutional republic with power granted by the people to the gov't and spelled out in the US Constitution. By definition, that it the opposite of socialism.
@bsabruzzo I believe that the USA today is not a capitalist country but a socialist country, much like Australia. China/Vietnam are more capitalist, especially as trade unionism is very much restricted in China/Vietnam. America/Australia in theory have government to provide welfare for the poor. This is limited in China/Vietnam where capitalists control everything, including government. The government is either in private hands (capitalism/dictatorship) or in public hands (socialism/democracy).
@100kby35 As for your rape fantasy, the gov't is set up by the people to protect liberty. When two liberties collide, it protects the individual who is harmed most and the courts allow peers to judge. On a jury, there would be more than rapists, but puritans as well.
Now, as capitalism is an economic description and socialism isn't, you are comparing apples and mangos. In a capitalist society, a person could pick a school, and not be forced to go to a gov't school. But that school couldn't harm
@100kby35 Finally, capitalism allows the flow of funds and freedom allows the choice. The rules of the agreed contract (one a person either abides by, violates, or leaved the juristiction) determin the laws. Morals guide the individual. Liberties define the natural rights for all individuals. Life and property are the child's rights as much as the parents.
And "state' intervention would be by the state not the feds, but the rights would be protected by the feds via contract.
@bsabruzzo Definition of government by Mises is the group that has a monopoly on "legitimate" use of power or coercion, i.e. the mobster of mobsters. Government is either controlled by the people or not. The degree to which government is controlled by the people determines whether a country is capitalist or communism. Government is a means of production as government control is a vital input to making money. Capitalism = means of production in private hands, hence government is privately owned.
@KaelinSaint Thanks for comments :) i feel issue is how much taxes. Taking too much is wrong as too little. Old Europe class division to stop poor from asking too much. Poor starve..bad lving cond rich live in palaces...that is wrong. Very little private charity...In US now mass poverty maybe too late to stop...what now? St Paul "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing...If you owe taxes, pay taxes.." (Romans 13:6-7).
I just don't think you can morally take from someone something they don't wish to give no matter what you do with it. Bank robbery, mugging, burglary and taxes are all immoral for the same exact reason. You are taking, through force, something you did not earn from someone who is not giving it voluntarily. As for charity, as government has grown, private charity has shrunk and this is no coincidence. Old Europe was inherited money and inherited power, that doesn't exist here.
@KaelinSaint an indi can't morally take money but the State has every right to. Benefits from living in society. Public school, student loans, library, roads, freedom, vaccinations, civll rights, 40 hr work wk, etc You had benefits yet deny to others. Never enoguh charily why we have soc services, That is a backwards suppositon. The point about Old Europe was they put the poor in sep class...so they didn't have to help them. We do same thing US push poor to ghettos deny them aid and opp.
Who pushes them to the ghetto? The government. Again, look at the rates of charity in this country. People have become less charitable as the government has grown and stolen that role. This has several reasons, some being government regulation on charity but mostly, if I'm paying 30% of my income to the government to dole out, I've already given my charity and will give no more. The Church only ever asked for 10%. You're missing the cause. The gov't causes the problems you mention.
@KaelinSaint What push ppl in ghetto is greed..simple as that.. There is some charirty do you really think if all charity was private the poor would be cared for? I have seen soup kitchens in NYC and these men have barely enought to eat. ALL worker protection by gov't. "...“Beware of all greed, because life is not in the abundance of riches.” (Lk 12:15) If Ayn Rand is in hell (saying) what good are all her ideas? she was in effect saying "don't care for the poor leave it to someone else."
Rand's a good response to the occupy wallstreet crowd who make no distinction between he who gains admission to the 1% by the production,via hard work and brains of goods and services for sale to willing buyers and those who get there by means of political favoritism.
@sleedolfine15 Wrong. When one of their first tennets is to get the corrupt money out of politics it perfectly denotes that they know the distinction but you don't get into nuance when framing an issue. "Oh, we meant the 99.3% vs the 0.7% of the top 1% who actually perform the act of buying politicians." Please tell me where you would get those stats in the first place?
@bungerman1000 You should listen to them. They support things like the millionaire's tax which would steal from the rich irrespective of how their wealth is acquired. Also the reason why the system is corrupt is due to the considerable power posessed by the State--a power which allows powerful interest to benefit themselves via that power. Most of the occupy crowd seem to favor unending government power because it yields benefits for themselves.
@sleedolfine15 At the end of the day they have valid reasoning to go against both. I'm assuming that you see no reason in why they should go against the rich who have earned their money through hard work. While I do agree with what you think about hard work, I disagree with the fact that those people should earn more money than everyone else. What makes their occupation so much better than everyone else's? My parents work 363 days a year 15 hours a day. How come my family can't be that rich?
@ImAznnn That's easy. The thing that makes the profits of a true capitalist moral and good is that unlike government which takes what it wants by force the capitalist gets his money by providing somebody something they want at a price they are willing to pay. Under true capitalism,as opposed to corporatism,no one loses becauses all parties to the transaction gets what they desire most via free trade. Who are you to interfer with the voluntary interactions of free people?
@sleedolfine15 Even under an anarcho-capitalist society, there will still be people earning more money per hour. You have answered why people would get better wages under an anarcho-capitalist society but did not answer why it's fair that some people still get to earn more than others. Every occupation is equally important thus shouldn't everyone earn an equal wage including those belonging in the higher bracket of a company?
I wish to further discuss the morality of profit later.
@ImAznnn Actually,I have explained why they deserve more money. They do a better job than most of serving the desires of others which results in the provider geting an agreed upon conpensation. A better question is what qualifies you or anyone else to interfer in freely entered into private transactions involving 2 or more adults who seek to exchange what they own for ownership of what another owners owns. As for every occupation being equally important..important to whom?
@sleedolfine15 My logic is this: If we take away the proletariat, the system would fail as nothing will be produced. If we take away the bourgeoisie, the system would fail as things would not be managed properly. Therefore, unless you can prove this logic wrong, every occupation is equal in importance (to society).
No one should interfere with private business but everyone is should stop wrongdoings (in this case it is forced exploitation since capitalists do not offer up equivalent exchange)
@ImAznnn You are complicating things by using nonsensical marxian terminology. No one thinks in those terms outside of a poli sci class. Bourgeoisie--proletariat are artificial constructs & are meaningless in a free society where class membership shifts with each individual choice & action. We are what we choose to be. No one is being exploited in the free market & the only way to prevent free market choices is through the force & violence of government and I don't choose to be forced.
@sleedolfine15 Marxist terminology is used to help explain how our society functions. The terms would only be meaningless if what they mean does not exist. Furthermore, they do not describe anything to us about class shifts only about the class itself.
The only nonsense would be to say that our society is fairly easy to interpret.
They are being exploited as again, equivalent exchange is never offered by the capitalist (so profit could be made). The worker is forced to take a lower wage.
@ImAznnn In every area of human life,there are only 2 ways of doing things either via voluntary action & interaction in which an individual either on his own or in voluntary cooperation with other individuals choose a particular action or actions--This can be love,farming,sex,business,learning to rumba, etc.,etc. The other way of doing thing is force & violence meaning I'm stronger than you so I'm going to make you do what I say. The only exploitation is the force which you advocate.
@sleedolfine15 You seem to be making the assumption that I want to force the worker to take a higher wage. That isn't the case at all. All i wish to do is to make sure the worker gets an opportunity to earn an equal pay. If equivalent exchange is offered to the table and the worker refuses it then that's perfectly fine. It's not my life. I'm advocating option not force.
By doing this I'm actually expanding his liberties rather than taking them away.
@ImAznnn "All i wish to do is to make sure the worker gets an opportunity to earn an equal pay."
And how does one "make sure" that this occurs? If it's voluntary interaction, then why does one need to "make sure" it happens? You shouldn't need to do anything if it is voluntary.
If workers are being exploited, then why do they not simply use their skills to make their own products and sell those themselves instead? There is a reason workers decide to work for others.
@TheMoriMaster Equivalent exchange can only be done under a society with no private enterprise. The gov't pays you.
Exchange under a capitalist society is only voluntary since the worker cannot get a better wage elsewhere; the worker is always forced to choose a wage below equivalent exchange.
With regards to the last part:
1. Workers do not understand exploitation (most people don't)
2. Exploited conditions are fairly decent compared to potential conditions in running their own enterprise.
@ImAznnn "Equivalent exchange can only be done under a society with no private enterprise."
What do you mean by "equivalent exchange?" Workers being paid exactly what the product they produced made on the market? If so, then you missed the point of my last question. Workers do not own the factories, the tools, the machines, etc.. That is why artisans died out when industrialization occurred. People produced more in groups and with machines and tools. That is also why it would not be (Cont)
@ImAznnn (Cont) "equivolent exchange" if the workers were paid all the profits. They are being given the raw materials, the machines, the tools that they use to produce the products at the rate and quality industrialization brings. There is an associated cost going into those things and a risk that the employer is taking to pay for those things, as well as the initial wages of the workers before the business becomes profitable.
@TheMoriMaster Workers are not being paid exactly for what they produce. If it were that case the capitalist would make no profit. In our current state of technology people are able to create much more than what their labor is worth. The capitalist extracts this surplus and it becomes his profit.
I'm not telling them to start their own company. I'm telling them to start a revolution so it is possible in the future so that they could get a fair pay.
@ImAznnn "Workers are not being paid exactly for what they produce."
Yes? And? They are not the only side in this deal nor are they the only side that has something to offer. I just explained to you that the workers do not own the raw materials, machines and such. They go to work in factories because that is the environment in which they produce more. That extra production would not be there had it not been for the employer and the risk he took in paying for it.
@ImAznnn " I'm telling them to start a revolution so it is possible in the future so that they could get a fair pay."
But that's the thing, they'll never get what you consider to be "fair pay" even if we were to accept it. Labor is not the only thing that goes into a product. Somebody needs to sell it, somebody needs to gather the raw materials, somebody needs to buy the tools. You can't pay the workers "fair pay" because that would require paying everyone else nothing. (Cont)
@ImAznnn (Cont) And I don't expect anyone to work for nothing. Not government bureaucrats, not investors, not inventors, not capitalists, not anyone.
And in the end, it wouldn't be fair exchange. If it was, then the other side is completely frivolous seeing as they apparently don't deserve a cut of the profits and therefore don't do anything to help the worker. If it was, then the workers wouldn't be employed. They would work for themselves. Why doesn't this happen?(Cont)
@ImAznnn (Cont) Because the fact of that matter is that there is more than just labor going into a product to allow it to be produced at our current quality and rate. This is not exploitation. It is the reason for why workers decide to be employed. Workers are not idiots. If they could make more without being employed then they would do so. But what you're saying is to replace all other sides with the government. That is not freedom, and it is not what brings prosperity.
@TheMoriMaster The capitalist also requires money to pay for operating expenses and also his compensation for his labor so I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve to be paid. I'm saying that he earns more than what he is supposed to by stealing unused surplus from the working class. I am against profit as it is theft and exploitation. I am not against fair pay to capitalists.
Risk should not be used to justify profit because risk does not add any value to the product; only human labor adds value.
@ImAznnn "I am against profit as it is theft and exploitation."
no it isn't. profits reveal efficiency in production. take two people pay give them each 100 dollars. assign them with a task to do something as simple (by today's standards) as adding 1000 numbers together, whatever they have left over after completing the task is theirs to keep, i.e. it's their profit. let's set a rate of pay for labor for both of them at $20/hr. (cont.)
@cristoballs if one person does the job without any use of calculators or any other modern convenience, let's say it takes him 5 hours to complete the job. therefore, his labor costs are 100 dollars, which yields him a profit of nothing. the second person, uses a computer and finishes the job in a manner of seconds. his labor costs are next to nothing so his profit is nearly 100 dollars. which person was being exploited?
@cristoballs Profit does indicate which companies are successful at delivering goods to the public (in free markets) but you still haven't proven to me how it is not theft or exploitation.
Your example did not have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I am talking about exploitation within companies. Exploitation cannot be found in self-employment as there is no bourgeois class extracting surplus from a proletarian class.
Use another example to explain your point (if you have one).
@ImAznnn "you still haven't proven to me how it is not theft or exploitation."
you haven't given any reason for me to believe any theft has taken place. where are you getting this idea that free markets work on theft? as for exploitation, i understand there's a negative association with the word in moral sense, but the definition of the word doesn't say anything about morality. are immigrant workers exploited for cheap labor? sure. but they also exploit employers for better wages. (cont.)
@cristoballs if immigrants were not getting better wages here than what they would receive working in the home country, there would be no reason to immigrate. you're making it sound as if only the employer benefits from exploiting cheap labor. if both parties (employers and labor) willfully agree to an exchange of labor for pay, then there is nothing wrong with that.
@ImAznnn You and others make the same mistake by not looking at the bigger picture.No matter where you work in capitalism you are FORCED to work in exploited conditions as there are NO options for u to work in a place where you get fair pay.You think that just b/c a worker chooses to work at a certain company in a capitalist society he has complete freedom.He does not have freedom.Capitalists take his COMPLETE freedom away by not offering up fair pay to workers.
@ImAznnn i'm not forced to work anywhere. i choose to work because it provides a better alternative than not working. even if you were on a deserted island, you have a choice whether or not to work. if you sit around and do nothing, you will die very quickly of starvation. if you have to climb a tree to get food, that's work. it just so happens your reward for your labor is much greater under capitalism than anywhere else in the world.
@ImAznnn "The excess surplus which the capitalist extracts belongs to everyone not just him as he is not the only person creating that surplus."
now you're just being ridiculous. if i invest my money in a company, in which i'm willing to bear all the financial risks, then i'm entitled to all the potential rewards that come with that company. are you suggesting that the risks are evenly distributed, among labor as well? (cont.)
@cristoballs if you're working for a company. and it operates at a loss, you may lose your job, but that's all you'll lose. you'll still collect pay for the time you worked at the rate you agreed to work for. you're not responsible for paying for any of the losses of the company. thus, you're not entitled to any of the gains the company receives either.
@ImAznnn Then what is fair pay for a capitalist? What is fair pay for a worker? What about them makes it fair?
"...only human labor adds value."
No. Value is based on perception. One could work all day digging holes. They could work hard with their heart in it, but that doesn't change the value of the hole. Perhaps if someone wants a well dug the hole could be valuable, but that is based entirely on the customer's perception. Labor must conform to that.
@TheMoriMaster Fair pay for capitalist = money for maintenance + money for his labor. Right now it's money for maintenance + money for his labor + unused surplus (which belongs to everyone).
Utility only tells us whether or not value exists within a product; it doesn't dictate the exact value as it doesn't enhance the product in any way. However, we're assuming utility in products. The value depends on the average labor time required to make the product.
@ImAznnn "The value depends on the average labor time required to make the product."
No, it doesn't. Labor time has absolutely nothing to do with value, regardless of whether or not utility itself is assumed. I could throw out all the machines and work hard at making a sort of cutting tool, but that doesn't make it more valuable than one made in seconds with the push of a button. One that is probably more precise than the one I made.
@ImAznnn Machines cut down on labor time. What of those? If I use a machine to make a product does that make it less valuable? I'm spending less time on it, and using less "labor." We strive to cut down on labor as much as possible. Why do that if labor is what gives value? It is because value does not come from labor, it comes from perception. Prices themselves come from the general perception of the market. Labor is simply a tool in the process. It does not inherently give value.
@ImAznnn "Fair pay for capitalist = money for maintenance + money for his labor"
That's nonsense. First of all, who are you to say what is fair pay? Fairness is determined through voluntary interaction between the parties making the trade. That, and there is more to production than labor. You need capital. Money to pay for everything. The initial wages, the machines, the factories, etc... This is separate from labor and yet it enhances production. Workers don't have the money for the
@ImAznnn machines they use. They work for others because those tools and the organization itself is handed to them. Alone they may produce but one shoe a day, but in a factory they could produce more. Many more.
@ImAznnn "Right now it's money for maintenance + money for his labor + unused surplus (which belongs to everyone)."
Really? So why does it belong to everyone? The capitalist owns the business (I'm going to exclude investors here because that would make this unnecessarily complicated). He started it, or perhaps inherited it, so what about it makes it "everyone's?"
@TheMoriMaster If labor doesn't dictate the exact value then I guess the products are really just poofing out of thin air aren't they?
Machines make products less valuable yes. But keep in mind here is a difference between value and price.
Fair pay is when the workers gets paid exactly according to how much value he is producing.
It doesn't matter who started the company. If the capitalist earns $2 while doing 1 unit of work and the worker earns $1 while doing 2 units. How is capitalism fair?
@ImAznnn "If labor doesn't dictate the exact value then I guess the products are really just poofing out of thin air aren't they?"
So now would be a good time to tell me where exactly I said that labor doesn't exist.
Let's say I spent a lot of "labor units" on making a widget, but nobody wants my widget. Would my widget be valuable? No, because value comes from the perception of the buyers. What if you're a millionaire dying of thirst in the desert? How much would water be worth to you?(Cont)
@ImAznnn I'd guess you would pay anything for water at that point. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because you think it's worth the money. And even then, what of raw materials that have had no labor go into them? Are they all worthless?
"Machines make products less valuable yes. But keep in mind here is a difference between value and price."
No, they don't. All they do is produce MORE OF the product. Abundance plays a large part in determining value. Rare metals are valuable because they
@ImAznnn "If the capitalist earns $2 while doing 1 unit of work and the worker earns $1 while doing 2 units. How is capitalism fair?"
What if I dig some holes in my backyard and work real hard at it. Do I deserve money simply for exerting myself? Am I entitled to it? Earnings doesn't come from how hard you work. Earnings come from how useful you are. How useful you are is determined through trade. Why do you think the worker can do 2 units of work? What if he was on his own, no exploitation?
@TheMoriMaster "Earnings doesn't come from how hard you work. Earnings come from how useful you are."
Why is it that the majority of farmers are very poor. Society simply would NOT be able to survive without them. Society can however survive without lawyers, financial brokers, accountants, etc.
We can't survive without farmers, carpenters, doctors, dentists, electricians and various other trades.
@ImAznnn Do you think he would keep up that production without the tools he used? Doubtful. Artisans died out for that very reason. The average factory worker cannot be expected to buy all the machines he needs. That, and all the other people he needs, what with the division of labor. This is what the capitalist trades for his labor. A wage and the tools he needs, the people he needs, the factory he needs to make his work easier, simpler, and more productive.
@ImAznnn Judging such matters by labor alone disregards all the other parts played in economics. Especially in the system of yours by which the capitalist has no right to the property he bought with his own earnings or from a loan that he will be expected to repay. Instead the workers are somehow entitled to his property. Keep in mind capitalism is a completely voluntary system. All trades must be agreed upon by both parties. It baffles me how you think you have the right to coerce either party.
@ImAznnn Not to mention these people are bargaining voluntarily (Assuming a free market). What gives you or anyone else the right to put a gun to one of their heads and force them to change their offer?
As for profit, how is it theft in the first place? These people are acting of their own volition. Theft is only theft when consent is not given, and if consent is not given in this situation, then either of them can simply reject the other. There is no coercive force involved.
@TheMoriMaster This again goes back to my point about how people are not free in a capitalist if they're forced to work below fair pay.
No matter where you go in a capitalist society you won't find a company that offers fair pay to its workers. Why? Because capitalism is all about profit and the exploitation of workers.
Capitalism is based off of theft. It's just that your not looking at the bigger picture.
@ImAznnn "This again goes back to my point about how people are not free in a capitalist if they're forced to work below fair pay."
Because they don't own the businesses in which they work. They are trading. There are multiple sides to a trade, and thus the traders must make a compromise. This is the compromise. All of it is completely voluntary; nobody is compelled by the force of a gun like what you're proposing.
This is stupid and wrong for so many reasons. Strawman after strawman. Ridiculous. I can't believe I used to be a fan.
06mustangCE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@06mustangCE Can you give a few examples for us then please?
AnubisEye009 3 weeks ago
@06mustangCE Prove it!
leeknivek 2 weeks ago
Ayn Rand, her followers (among whom is Alan Greenspan) have caused more death and suffering in the world in the past couple decades then any Muslims or Christian has in the past 300 years.
EquitesVeritatis 1 month ago in playlist Those who indoctrinate the pansy ass American apologists.
@EquitesVeritatis Did they? How?
leeknivek 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
wow, no two sentence comments and they don't consist of "you greedy pig" or "share the wealth" clearly people influenced by Ayn Rand are much more civilised and informed than lazy collective altruist's.
darklordchaosXD 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
'mazing
BagofHay 4 months ago
Fair pay is fair as long as there is no coercion. A worker is free to disengage from the employment agreement if he so pleases.
josemi72 4 months ago
Free Market Capitalism that is supported by the people and the law works best....just sayin
JeffGeigercr 4 months ago
capitalism is and always will be the only truly fair system.
atlaspressed 4 months ago
Not normally a fan of Ayn Rand, but her whole essay on The Virtue of Selfishness really is a marvellous piece of work.
Hayleyfire929 4 months ago
Maybe the anti-Rand-ites can explain something about how being selfish and making money is bad in itself.
We'll ignore the fact that Rand was an atheist and that the Bible and Jesus actually hold the "rich man" or a person who earns his wealth to be just as good or bad as any olther.
If a person, call him Steve J., works to make millions of $, employs 1000s of people and makes goods more affordable, is he still evil? He has to please employees and customers to make those millions.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
News! Nobody I know has any problem whatsoever practicing the "virtue (?!) of selfishness." Rand, a narcissistic psychopath, continues to attract "disciples" as duplicitous as she with the likes of Allen Greenspan (master bankster), Ben Bernanke (Greenspan's protege), Geithner, Paulson, etc. Her duties toward others (she doesn't believe that she has any: Kant be damned!!) stops dead at her notorious dollar sign while disguising herself as a philosophic friend of humanity: Greed is Good?! OCCUPY!
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1
Derp.
Soupflakez 4 months ago
I have some disagreements with Ayn on some subjects, but I'm glad I never have to debate her. She would rip the crap out of me in 2 sentences.
Brantoc 4 months ago
@Brantoc That wouldn't make her right or you wrong.
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
Where does envy and covetousness rank against selfishness and greed?
Iggyykinkstonebeat6 4 months ago
@Iggyykinkstonebeat6 They're one and the same.
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 @Iggyykinkstonebeat6 I think the mud-tinted windows of closed-minds tend to confusse an issue.
"Where does envy and covetousness rank against selfishness and greed" Envy and coveting can be a catalyst fo greater things. You envy the neighbor's clothing and you work harder to earn more. This produces more goods, so abundance reduces prices and more people can have them. If you envy somebody so much, you create a movement, a business, a charity, a new invention.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
Mimetic desire leads to bloody competition whereby the ends are used to justify the means: one's ends justify one's INJUSTICES & it propels one into the narcissistic world of pride, envy, greed, revenge, violence, hatred, war, torture & death. Vanity & corruption have plagued our species since the beginning of time. Our demise is certain unless we realize that Statism vs. Corporatism is a false dichotomy & both have the exact same ends & both use the exact same means: To enslave us. OCCUPY!.
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 "OCCUPY" I sahall say this, your term implies you have the same idea as your "Statism vs. Corporatism ".
"desire leads to bloody competition " I left of the mimetic as even those fighting against your gov't vs corp idea are also mimicing others blindly.
But as human are a wide variety and the businessman's self interest leads him to please his customers, his employees and his creditor/shareholders, selfishness leads to self preservation, which leads to doing the right thing.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
@bsabruzzo I'm not against business or businessmen, I against crony capitalism.
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 "I'm not against business or businessmen, I against crony capitalism."
This is like saying "I'm not against clothing or taylors, I'm against sewing and stitching cloth together into something wearable"
So, you are for the product of capitalism and the people who use capitalisn, but you are against the meathod those people create products.
Maybe you meant Corporatism, which is where corps act like a gov't, or crony capitalism, where gov't and corps inter mingle.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
@bsabruzzo Yes, "Corporatism" is fine too. More specifically, I'm against a corrupt government that demands to be bought by the FED & the international banking & corporate monopolies that it serves. Corporatism & Statism are one & the same thing (& have been throughout our history: where's Andrew Jackson when WE really need him?!) & I'm against them both. We need a new politics. I'm for Ron Paul in 2012 & I support both the Tea Party & the Occupiers. It's Paul's candidacy that serves them both.
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 "...& the Occupiers."
You do realize that the ones occupying Wall Street are progressives by majority, correct? The general sentiment is that the government needs to take more control of banking. Why would you support them after saying all that you have?
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 "against crony capitalism"
Oops, sorry I missed the one word. I see you and I are on the same page.
Let's work together to shrink gov't so corps and unions have little influence and the individuals have greater influence.
TEA parties over OWe Us protests.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
Steve Jobs started as a robber.
kroovyandcal 4 months ago
Selfishness works to an extent, but I believe one problem for the masses is that of the "poor and rich". The poor multiply, dividing their wealth between large families, whilst the rich ensure their wealth will remain for generations to come at the cost of population. As a result, those born rich are open to many opportunities pre-established by their forefathers that the poor are not. Is this unfair? No. Does it seem unfair to those disadvantaged? Quite.
justicetrooper 4 months ago
@justicetrooper Tell me, where did your expectation for fairness originate. Is it really realistic or even desirable to expect an equal result, regardless of external circumstances, and in spite of the level of thought, discipline and planning individuals choose to invest in their lives?
fzqlcs 4 months ago
@fzqlcs No, it's not realistic, although "fairness" has often been legislated, enforced & adjudicated: it's called civil & criminal law. Sure, we have too many laws & too little liberty. But unless your prepared to take up arms against a police state that will crush you, you might think about joining the 99% of us who don't quite buy the abstract legal notions of "fairness." We live the unfairness. We're being crushed by the unfairness of all the political ideologies. Will you help us? OCCUPY!
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@justicetrooper how is this not unfair? a child born into disadvantage through no fault of his own, forced to live a life where he has poor access to education, healthcare, and other necessities of life? remember the top 20% own 80% of all the wealth. the top 0.01% of america earn $2 million per year.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35
Pareto Principle? Really? If you knew more about the whole 80/20 thing you'd be less likely to try and use it as an argument for more government. The Pareto Principle applies no matter the form or control of government. Twenty percent of the people end up with eighty percent of the wealth. Question is, do they get that wealth through innovation and productive activity or through hand outs and gifts from political allies? Also, as they acquire that wealth, do they better others?
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@100kby35 I will agree that it's unfair for someone to bring a child into the world that they can't provide for. However, I don't see it being unfair for people to have child. If you follow the trend of the big poor family and the small rich one, after a couple generations the rich will be outnumbered no matter which way you slice it. If wealth is earned through willing trade (and not stolen in bailouts) it seems perfectly fair to use this wealth one's own offspring.
justicetrooper 4 months ago
@justicetrooper But it isn't us that provides for us, it's the Earth that gives to all ends to give us what we need. We just shape it from out mind into things beyond what we need.
Budvb 4 months ago
@Budvb Well, if you want to treat the Earth as a person, have a fun. Just be aware that the conversation ends here. XD
justicetrooper 4 months ago
@justicetrooper In most socialist countries, rich parents are allowed to give more or less freely to their children. However, these socialist countries provide government assistance to children born to poor families. This is to ensure these children, through no fault of their own, do not starve to death simply because they were unfortunately enough to be born into the wrong family. Under a pure capitalist system, wealth is all private and street children starve to death.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 Correction: In socialist countries money is taken from taxes without the direct consent of tax-payers(Which I would consider theft) to pay for a parent to raise a child they shouldn't have had. In pure capitalism only the willing pay for the poor. This is called charity. If someone has a child, by what right do they reach into another person's wallet without permission? If it weren't thievery, it'd be charity. However, it's not charity.
justicetrooper 4 months ago
@justicetrooper If I were a dictator, I would direct public funds to disadvantaged children not via the parents but directly to the child e.g. through food provided in schools, as is done in some countries. In America these funds are directed to the parents. It's imperfect, but it is what it is.
100kby35 4 months ago
@justicetrooper If a poor parent produces a child he cannot afford, you are blaming the parent, but blaming the parent does nothing to help the child. The reality is that people have sex first and don't think about the consequences. You paint the picture of the dumb and impulsive parent who has sex and then steals from another to feed the child. The parent has nothing to do with this. It is the child who is vulnerable. It is the child who needs to "steal" otherwise the child starves to death.
100kby35 4 months ago
@justicetrooper If I could not afford to have a child, I would not. But when you say that a man who cannot afford to have a child should not have a child, you are going against the free market. Most poor children are born to parents who have had consensual sex. The man and woman agree to the exchange of sexual services. We have an exchange of services in a market economy for sex. For you to impose your morality on free market trade is socialist.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 Let me reword this for you then, bro. If you have a child and can not afford it, you should accept the consequences of that decision. If you can find a way to raise the kid, cool. If not, prepare for consequences. I'd suggest not having a kid when you know you can't support it. If people want to cause unnecessary suffering, that's their fun. You want kids, but have no college fund, then the kids will pay student loans or just go without a degree. Individual choice and responsibility.
justicetrooper 4 months ago
its interesting t me how terms are used so ambiguously like"hard work" and 'job providers". The premise from which one intitates his or her values is the key. if you believe that man created the things by which he becomes wealthy, then you can justify the concept of selfishness, however, if you are to believe that God created everything and man has a duty when he obtains wealth from his labor sufficient for his life, does he have a resonsibility to others regarding the excess?
autofill67 4 months ago
@autofill67 you are exactly right. such explains why faith and reason are at their very root incompatible. one must be held as an absolute. i had no choice but to become an atheist when I fully grasped this stark and somewhat harsh realization.
fzqlcs 4 months ago
Don't agree with every part of Rand's philosophy, but I love the intro to this book.
BadgeringTheWitness1 4 months ago
The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand is good book and I want everyone to read it!
RandCliffLangley 4 months ago 9
@RandCliffLangley Is this extra credit or part of a grade?
golden7734 4 months ago
It's actually a very bad book. Her philosophical mistakes are readily manifest from the Greeks onward. Her moral vision: I am the center of OUR universe. Her politics were solipsistic incoherence & self serving impotence. Her economics derived from her narcissistic psychopathy & she had NO duties to whom she deemed unworthy. She was a vile creature who occasionally latched on to some clever ideas & had a way with words. Follow her to where? Her dollar sign grave? Have a heart. OCCUPY!
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 I think that Rand was wrong about some things and there is a cult around here, but you're just making ad hominem attacks.
thatlogicalguy 4 months ago
@thatlogicalguy You're quite correct. One can like her arguments and dislike her as a person. In my case, I dislike both & the ad hominems are a cathartic way for me to express it. It's terribly difficult to pick her bones & stay within anything like 500 words. Thanks for the call.
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
@BrotherWoody1
Try not to misstate a position you disagree with too much, otherwise you'll come off as a complete retard. Oh wait....
Her politics were solipsistic incoherence? You've got to be joking, right?
Soupflakez 4 months ago
I am a good loving and Selfish person.
I seek to bring good for everyone including myself.
But I will never kick someone down to get more. And I willstop people from doing it.
it's about happines for everyone. That's wht makes someting good.
chrstilen5 4 months ago
Rand speaks in absolutes. As in someone can't chose to be both selfish or altruistic at times and still be moral. The problem lies in extremes of either choice. If you are ONLY selfish or ONLY altruistic. There is a happy medium in which you obtain maximum benefit for yourself as well as others.
bungerman1000 4 months ago
@bungerman1000 It's not absolute. In this video, she is trying to explain an idea and the consequences. I don't think most non-violent or voluntarist type people would try to prevent anyone being charitable. There is nothing wrong with charity etc. I think the point is that charitable acts shouldn't be obligatory. It's a bit like property rights. You can defend your property, but you can also choose to not defend it if you want.
zalida100 4 months ago
@bungerman1000
I think morals are absolutes. They may be personal as in your morals and mine have no need to be the same, but to hold something as a moral it has to be an absolute. I think morals are hierarchical in nature. It is immoral to kill but self defense is moral even if it results in death. So killing is subservient to self defense. Being selfish is subservient to the moral that the initiation of force is immoral, so be selfish but don't initiate force. Logically solid morals.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
One must look out for oneself and ones family before being able to help others. This is common sense. Once able to be charitable only after ones own house is in order is a personal matter. Give according to ones own situation or belief. Taxing the middle class is theft by force. Charity begins at home.
dd00hli 4 months ago 7
@dd00hli
Taxing anyone, poor, rich or otherwise is theft. Theft implies the use of force for without force it wouldn't be considered theft but a willingly given gift. I wholly agree with your overall point though, just hoped to refine things a little. Hope you don't mind.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
If the schools taught children Ayn Rand instead of Judaeo-Christian ethics, they wouldn't turn out so many pussies.
SkullOfYorick 4 months ago 3
@SkullOfYorick you said a mouthful there, brother. i second that emotion.
fzqlcs 4 months ago
Isn't selfishness not "caring for one's own intersts" rather the
"EXCESSIVE concern for one's material interests?" Isn't Ayn Rand basically Reagan era "greed is good" limited for few years then crashed. We are socail creatures (we need others). It says in Bible. Is Rand trying to refute the Bible? Was she Christian even? This is not a Christian teaching. The young man who stays at home and helps his invalid mother IS morally superior to the young man you leaves her for his own carreer.
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773 what are you talking about miss?
STAB1L 4 months ago
@tmmy773 Rand was a strong atheist :)
grassmaster180 4 months ago
@tmmy773 she certainly wasn't a Christian. Don't think you'll find many on this channel either.
panzer903 4 months ago
@tmmy773 Google "define:selfish",greed is neither good or bad since its a basic human drive that everyone has,it is the reason why you want more,she was an Atheist,and you are missing the point of selfishness which is what this video is about,people not understanding what selfishness is that's why you are making bible/invalid mother argument.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 4 months ago
@olhsaoagpaigfbp i'm trying to answer the questions / ideas in the video. She is an Aethiest..how did i realize that wo looking her bio? I would like a flat screen tv How is that greed? How can you say greed isn't wanting "excessive" material goods? ok to have things within reason. If i buy 2 flat screen tvs not instead give to charity is greedy. Avarice (greed) is one of 7 deadly sins. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (PS 11:10) Is she wiser than Bible and book of wisom?
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773 How is that not greed? you want flat screen TV and there are people who don't have food why don't you settle for old CRT and donate rest of the money or for that matter no TV at all?She might be wiser than the dude that wrote that part of bible,don't bring religion in the argument because that is your belief not fact ,might as well have a Muslim argue that she wasn't right cause she ate pork.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 4 months ago
@tmmy773 ok another case...if a man lives in a poor desert country and ppl in village are starving...and buys a flat-screen tv...that is greed unless the person first buys food for the hungry and then buys a small tv...his money is property...even then he should first think about how he can help others...being rich has a great responsilbility. I give some to charity even i am poor myself...and i have a tv i bought at goodwill for $7.
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773
Why should he buy food for them first? Are they not responsible for their own lives just like the man who is going to buy the TV is responsible for his own? Does their sheer existence mean that others must provide for them if they refuse or are unable to do so themselves? What about the workers who get a wage for making the TV and feed themselves are they any less deserving of being fed than those who haven't provided a service to feed themselves?
roddack 4 months ago 2
@roddack Well said. Whether your argument will be widely understood is another matter, but it is a great comment, and I enjoyed reading it. - Thanks.
zalida100 4 months ago
@tmmy773
The issue comes when you wish to tell me that I MUST give to charity. I MUST give a portion of the income that I earned from "the sweat of my brow" to anyone. I applaud your charity though I think you'd be better off using that money to further your skill set and increase your knowledge then use that to move out of poverty. But I wouldn't dream of forcing you to do that and neither should you wish to force to be charitable personally or through the State. That is immoral.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@KaelinSaint i think forcing charity (i.e. government taxs) is right. the reality is that there is not enough kindness in this world. if capitalists had their way, there will be nothing for the poor. disabled people will be left to starve on the streets. children born to poor parents will also be left to beg and starve on the streets. their labor will be sold to capitalists who will exploit them in brothels to cater to pedophiles. the only thing stopping this is government.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35
Do you have any proof or at least some amount of evidence that this is in fact the case? I'll do what you just did and make an unprovable statement and ask you to argue it. About three years ago I started gargling gasoline every other Friday and have done so ever since. This ritual has prevented the invasion of Earth by aliens from the planet Zarbak. Without me guzzling that gasoline, you'd have been on the wrong side of an anal probe for the last several years. Prove me wrong!
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@KaelinSaint capitalism leads to exploitation of children. it happened during the industrial revolution when children were used to work in factories and they were exploited. laws had to be introduced to stop this. these laws were government intervention, and necessary government intervention. asia is now undergoing its own industrial revolution and we see not only child labor but also child prostitution as capitalists pimp these poor kids off to pedophiles. free markets!
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 actually children were working before the industrial revolution, it's capitalism that gave their parents the opportunity to send them to school rather than the mine or the shop. The side you're on leads time and again to those children working again instead of learning. Child labor and underage prostitution have been prevalent in most of the world for most of history... Capitalism is the way to fix that, it is not the cause, it wasn't there to be the cause...
daPlumber702 4 months ago 4
@daPlumber702 Capitalism is the way to fix child prostitution? I find that hard to believe when socialists are the ones arguing for government to intervene in the education market to set teaching standards to stipulate that children not be exposed to rape. However, my right-wing capitalist friends want government completely out of the education market, thereby allowing each parent to decide for himself what to teach his child, which logically means a pedophile parent can rape his child.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 Child prostitution--like most forms of child labor,are most apt to happen in societies so poor that the family needs the labor of children to survive. Capitalism produces so much wealth that families can live without sending the children out to work. Capitalism can't save all children from evil,but those children who would be laboring--including those in the sex trade, because of poverty would be saved.
sleedolfine15 4 months ago
@daPlumber702 It was actually the rise of democracy not capitalism that stopped child labour.
davijeph 4 months ago
@davijeph Have you checked to see whether or not the rate/amount of child labor was increasing or decreasing in the decades preceding legal action against child labor?
clemonsx90 4 months ago
@clemonsx90 Do you mean World wide or within the western Liberal Democracies? If you are implying that child labour was decreasing before child labour laws you would be wrong. It's true millions of citizens in many countries were able to find employment in factories because of the industrial revolution making great wealth for the few but it spawning poverty and environmental disaster for the many. It was hard won democracy, two world wars and a revolution in Russia that redressed the balance.
davijeph 4 months ago
@100kby35 "capitalism leads to exploitation of children. ... the industrial revolution .... laws had to be introduced to stop this"
AsI said, statistics don't actually bare this out, as the number of non-agricultural jobs done by children were on the decrease long before the laws were made, due to increased productivity, competition in the workplace and industry and innovation in technology.
Yet today children are still asked to clean their rooms... darn that child labor.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
@KaelinSaint I had an argument with a right-wing capitalist yesterday during lunch. he believes that there should be no public schools and that all schools should be private so that parents can choose what education is right for their own child rather than having the state (i.e. the people) choose. this logically meant that a pedophile parent could put his little daughter into a pedophile school and rape her and then cite sex education. rape of children is the logical consequence of capitalism
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 what a boob you are... There's so much wrong with your idea of free choice of schools that it's hard to know where to start. Basically, you just need to grow up and learn.
daPlumber702 4 months ago
@100kby35
Oh, you're a troll. I'll feed you later troll. Remind me though cause I may forget about you. I wouldn't want the little troll to starve. I really applaud the attempt at logic though. It's better than the typical drivel of most trolls. Funny. Again, don't starve troll, I'll feed you later.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@100kby35 According to the pubic school system, if the pedophile gets into public office, he will use the guns of government to force all children to go to pedophile school. Thus, child-rape is the logical consequence of your position.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 My position is socialism, i.e. rule by society, i.e. rule by the people, i.e. democracy. If a pedophile were to get a government position whereby he introduced child rape into public schools, he is accountable to the politician who gave him his job and the politician is accountable to the voting public who will vote against pedophiles. Under pure capitalism, each parent decides if he wants to rape his child. The people or society have no say.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 The freedom to rape a child inplies that children are their parent's property. I'm a libertarian and we believe in the principle of self ownership,so sexual slavery like other forms of slavery would not be allowed. Capitalism also starts with the principle of self ownership and while a child lacks the full rights of an adult,in those rare cases where the parents are sick,he still has rights. By the way,surely you know that the public schools has more than a few pedophiles.
sleedolfine15 4 months ago
@shamgar001 As Margaret Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society, only individuals and family." This means that if a parent rapes his child, it is the individual or family unit that makes this decision and social morality cannot stop it. Imposing social morality e.g. mandating that children not have sex before they are 18 is a socialist policy as it takes the morality of society and its implementation constraints the liberties of the individual and family unit.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 That's incorrect. If someone murders their child, the government punishes them, not because "society" has decided it's wrong, but because it is the natural right of a child not to be killed.
Likewise, a child has a right not to be raped, and your assertion that libertarianism would allow for that is beyond ignorant.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 i went to the Libertarian Party website and here is their policy on education, suggesting parents decide: "Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market.... Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government."
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 That doesn't mean schools should be allowed to violate the rights of children. That's like arguing that if you don't want the government to regulate sex, then people have to be allowed to murder their partner during sex.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 Having sex with a child harms the child. How do we know this? Because society accepts it, and society enforces this knowledge through government. However, pure right-wing capitalists do not believe in society. They believe in individual choice and parents choosing for their children what is right. (Margaret Thatcher: "There is no society, only individuals and family.")
100kby35 4 months ago
@shamgar001 I want to protect children. It is people like Lindsay Ashford who scare me. The scientific literature on whether exposing children to sex is harmful is patchy. I personally believe children should not be sexualized based on moral grounds. I have a wish to protect the innocence of children. The concept of innocence is an abstract social concept, not some objective biochemical concept. Hence we need to impose social values on individuals to stop child abuse. We need socialism.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 "this logically meant that a pedophile parent could... " I think you used the word logically incorrectly.
As the US Constitution is set-up to protect innocence from harm, and to protect individuals liberty when it is infringed upon by others, the example you gave up would end up as that parent being arrested and jailed, along with that school's entire membership...
... logically.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
@bsabruzzo If a parent in a pure capitalist country were to teach his daughter sex education and proceed to rape her, if the state intervenes citing the US Constitution then this is a socialist country since there is state intervention into the education market to dictate and enforce social morals. In a pure capitalist country, the parent decides how to educate his children. Hence the parents chooses whether to homeschool, chooses which faith the school is, how sex education is taught, etc.
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 "citing the US Constitution then this is a socialist country " First, socialism is where the gov't runs the people. Second, this country (USA) is a Constitutional republic with power granted by the people to the gov't and spelled out in the US Constitution. By definition, that it the opposite of socialism.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
@bsabruzzo I believe that the USA today is not a capitalist country but a socialist country, much like Australia. China/Vietnam are more capitalist, especially as trade unionism is very much restricted in China/Vietnam. America/Australia in theory have government to provide welfare for the poor. This is limited in China/Vietnam where capitalists control everything, including government. The government is either in private hands (capitalism/dictatorship) or in public hands (socialism/democracy).
100kby35 4 months ago
@100kby35 As for your rape fantasy, the gov't is set up by the people to protect liberty. When two liberties collide, it protects the individual who is harmed most and the courts allow peers to judge. On a jury, there would be more than rapists, but puritans as well.
Now, as capitalism is an economic description and socialism isn't, you are comparing apples and mangos. In a capitalist society, a person could pick a school, and not be forced to go to a gov't school. But that school couldn't harm
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
@100kby35 Finally, capitalism allows the flow of funds and freedom allows the choice. The rules of the agreed contract (one a person either abides by, violates, or leaved the juristiction) determin the laws. Morals guide the individual. Liberties define the natural rights for all individuals. Life and property are the child's rights as much as the parents.
And "state' intervention would be by the state not the feds, but the rights would be protected by the feds via contract.
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
@bsabruzzo Definition of government by Mises is the group that has a monopoly on "legitimate" use of power or coercion, i.e. the mobster of mobsters. Government is either controlled by the people or not. The degree to which government is controlled by the people determines whether a country is capitalist or communism. Government is a means of production as government control is a vital input to making money. Capitalism = means of production in private hands, hence government is privately owned.
100kby35 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@100kby35 "if capitalists had their way, there will be nothing for the poor. disabled people ..."
Except statistical evidence shows these things:
- working conditions were improving and wages were increasing before unions and laws for those
- increased productivity and competition allowed more people to work less and more safely
- increased incomes allowed for science advancements
- competition meant employees had to be catered to in order to maintain profit, increasing wages and condition
bsabruzzo 4 months ago
@KaelinSaint Thanks for comments :) i feel issue is how much taxes. Taking too much is wrong as too little. Old Europe class division to stop poor from asking too much. Poor starve..bad lving cond rich live in palaces...that is wrong. Very little private charity...In US now mass poverty maybe too late to stop...what now? St Paul "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing...If you owe taxes, pay taxes.." (Romans 13:6-7).
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773
I just don't think you can morally take from someone something they don't wish to give no matter what you do with it. Bank robbery, mugging, burglary and taxes are all immoral for the same exact reason. You are taking, through force, something you did not earn from someone who is not giving it voluntarily. As for charity, as government has grown, private charity has shrunk and this is no coincidence. Old Europe was inherited money and inherited power, that doesn't exist here.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@KaelinSaint an indi can't morally take money but the State has every right to. Benefits from living in society. Public school, student loans, library, roads, freedom, vaccinations, civll rights, 40 hr work wk, etc You had benefits yet deny to others. Never enoguh charily why we have soc services, That is a backwards suppositon. The point about Old Europe was they put the poor in sep class...so they didn't have to help them. We do same thing US push poor to ghettos deny them aid and opp.
tmmy773 4 months ago
@tmmy773
Who pushes them to the ghetto? The government. Again, look at the rates of charity in this country. People have become less charitable as the government has grown and stolen that role. This has several reasons, some being government regulation on charity but mostly, if I'm paying 30% of my income to the government to dole out, I've already given my charity and will give no more. The Church only ever asked for 10%. You're missing the cause. The gov't causes the problems you mention.
KaelinSaint 4 months ago
@KaelinSaint What push ppl in ghetto is greed..simple as that.. There is some charirty do you really think if all charity was private the poor would be cared for? I have seen soup kitchens in NYC and these men have barely enought to eat. ALL worker protection by gov't. "...“Beware of all greed, because life is not in the abundance of riches.” (Lk 12:15) If Ayn Rand is in hell (saying) what good are all her ideas? she was in effect saying "don't care for the poor leave it to someone else."
tmmy773 4 months ago
Rand's a good response to the occupy wallstreet crowd who make no distinction between he who gains admission to the 1% by the production,via hard work and brains of goods and services for sale to willing buyers and those who get there by means of political favoritism.
sleedolfine15 4 months ago 29
@sleedolfine15 Wrong. When one of their first tennets is to get the corrupt money out of politics it perfectly denotes that they know the distinction but you don't get into nuance when framing an issue. "Oh, we meant the 99.3% vs the 0.7% of the top 1% who actually perform the act of buying politicians." Please tell me where you would get those stats in the first place?
bungerman1000 4 months ago
@bungerman1000 You should listen to them. They support things like the millionaire's tax which would steal from the rich irrespective of how their wealth is acquired. Also the reason why the system is corrupt is due to the considerable power posessed by the State--a power which allows powerful interest to benefit themselves via that power. Most of the occupy crowd seem to favor unending government power because it yields benefits for themselves.
sleedolfine15 4 months ago
@sleedolfine15 At the end of the day they have valid reasoning to go against both. I'm assuming that you see no reason in why they should go against the rich who have earned their money through hard work. While I do agree with what you think about hard work, I disagree with the fact that those people should earn more money than everyone else. What makes their occupation so much better than everyone else's? My parents work 363 days a year 15 hours a day. How come my family can't be that rich?
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn That's easy. The thing that makes the profits of a true capitalist moral and good is that unlike government which takes what it wants by force the capitalist gets his money by providing somebody something they want at a price they are willing to pay. Under true capitalism,as opposed to corporatism,no one loses becauses all parties to the transaction gets what they desire most via free trade. Who are you to interfer with the voluntary interactions of free people?
sleedolfine15 4 months ago
@sleedolfine15 Even under an anarcho-capitalist society, there will still be people earning more money per hour. You have answered why people would get better wages under an anarcho-capitalist society but did not answer why it's fair that some people still get to earn more than others. Every occupation is equally important thus shouldn't everyone earn an equal wage including those belonging in the higher bracket of a company?
I wish to further discuss the morality of profit later.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn Actually,I have explained why they deserve more money. They do a better job than most of serving the desires of others which results in the provider geting an agreed upon conpensation. A better question is what qualifies you or anyone else to interfer in freely entered into private transactions involving 2 or more adults who seek to exchange what they own for ownership of what another owners owns. As for every occupation being equally important..important to whom?
sleedolfine15 4 months ago
@sleedolfine15 My logic is this: If we take away the proletariat, the system would fail as nothing will be produced. If we take away the bourgeoisie, the system would fail as things would not be managed properly. Therefore, unless you can prove this logic wrong, every occupation is equal in importance (to society).
No one should interfere with private business but everyone is should stop wrongdoings (in this case it is forced exploitation since capitalists do not offer up equivalent exchange)
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn You are complicating things by using nonsensical marxian terminology. No one thinks in those terms outside of a poli sci class. Bourgeoisie--proletariat are artificial constructs & are meaningless in a free society where class membership shifts with each individual choice & action. We are what we choose to be. No one is being exploited in the free market & the only way to prevent free market choices is through the force & violence of government and I don't choose to be forced.
sleedolfine15 4 months ago
@sleedolfine15 Marxist terminology is used to help explain how our society functions. The terms would only be meaningless if what they mean does not exist. Furthermore, they do not describe anything to us about class shifts only about the class itself.
The only nonsense would be to say that our society is fairly easy to interpret.
They are being exploited as again, equivalent exchange is never offered by the capitalist (so profit could be made). The worker is forced to take a lower wage.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn In every area of human life,there are only 2 ways of doing things either via voluntary action & interaction in which an individual either on his own or in voluntary cooperation with other individuals choose a particular action or actions--This can be love,farming,sex,business,learning to rumba, etc.,etc. The other way of doing thing is force & violence meaning I'm stronger than you so I'm going to make you do what I say. The only exploitation is the force which you advocate.
sleedolfine15 4 months ago
@sleedolfine15 You seem to be making the assumption that I want to force the worker to take a higher wage. That isn't the case at all. All i wish to do is to make sure the worker gets an opportunity to earn an equal pay. If equivalent exchange is offered to the table and the worker refuses it then that's perfectly fine. It's not my life. I'm advocating option not force.
By doing this I'm actually expanding his liberties rather than taking them away.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "All i wish to do is to make sure the worker gets an opportunity to earn an equal pay."
And how does one "make sure" that this occurs? If it's voluntary interaction, then why does one need to "make sure" it happens? You shouldn't need to do anything if it is voluntary.
If workers are being exploited, then why do they not simply use their skills to make their own products and sell those themselves instead? There is a reason workers decide to work for others.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Equivalent exchange can only be done under a society with no private enterprise. The gov't pays you.
Exchange under a capitalist society is only voluntary since the worker cannot get a better wage elsewhere; the worker is always forced to choose a wage below equivalent exchange.
With regards to the last part:
1. Workers do not understand exploitation (most people don't)
2. Exploited conditions are fairly decent compared to potential conditions in running their own enterprise.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "Equivalent exchange can only be done under a society with no private enterprise."
What do you mean by "equivalent exchange?" Workers being paid exactly what the product they produced made on the market? If so, then you missed the point of my last question. Workers do not own the factories, the tools, the machines, etc.. That is why artisans died out when industrialization occurred. People produced more in groups and with machines and tools. That is also why it would not be (Cont)
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn (Cont) "equivolent exchange" if the workers were paid all the profits. They are being given the raw materials, the machines, the tools that they use to produce the products at the rate and quality industrialization brings. There is an associated cost going into those things and a risk that the employer is taking to pay for those things, as well as the initial wages of the workers before the business becomes profitable.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
Comment removed
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Workers are not being paid exactly for what they produce. If it were that case the capitalist would make no profit. In our current state of technology people are able to create much more than what their labor is worth. The capitalist extracts this surplus and it becomes his profit.
I'm not telling them to start their own company. I'm telling them to start a revolution so it is possible in the future so that they could get a fair pay.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "Workers are not being paid exactly for what they produce."
Yes? And? They are not the only side in this deal nor are they the only side that has something to offer. I just explained to you that the workers do not own the raw materials, machines and such. They go to work in factories because that is the environment in which they produce more. That extra production would not be there had it not been for the employer and the risk he took in paying for it.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn " I'm telling them to start a revolution so it is possible in the future so that they could get a fair pay."
But that's the thing, they'll never get what you consider to be "fair pay" even if we were to accept it. Labor is not the only thing that goes into a product. Somebody needs to sell it, somebody needs to gather the raw materials, somebody needs to buy the tools. You can't pay the workers "fair pay" because that would require paying everyone else nothing. (Cont)
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn (Cont) And I don't expect anyone to work for nothing. Not government bureaucrats, not investors, not inventors, not capitalists, not anyone.
And in the end, it wouldn't be fair exchange. If it was, then the other side is completely frivolous seeing as they apparently don't deserve a cut of the profits and therefore don't do anything to help the worker. If it was, then the workers wouldn't be employed. They would work for themselves. Why doesn't this happen?(Cont)
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn (Cont) Because the fact of that matter is that there is more than just labor going into a product to allow it to be produced at our current quality and rate. This is not exploitation. It is the reason for why workers decide to be employed. Workers are not idiots. If they could make more without being employed then they would do so. But what you're saying is to replace all other sides with the government. That is not freedom, and it is not what brings prosperity.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@TheMoriMaster The capitalist also requires money to pay for operating expenses and also his compensation for his labor so I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve to be paid. I'm saying that he earns more than what he is supposed to by stealing unused surplus from the working class. I am against profit as it is theft and exploitation. I am not against fair pay to capitalists.
Risk should not be used to justify profit because risk does not add any value to the product; only human labor adds value.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "I am against profit as it is theft and exploitation."
no it isn't. profits reveal efficiency in production. take two people pay give them each 100 dollars. assign them with a task to do something as simple (by today's standards) as adding 1000 numbers together, whatever they have left over after completing the task is theirs to keep, i.e. it's their profit. let's set a rate of pay for labor for both of them at $20/hr. (cont.)
cristoballs 4 months ago
@cristoballs if one person does the job without any use of calculators or any other modern convenience, let's say it takes him 5 hours to complete the job. therefore, his labor costs are 100 dollars, which yields him a profit of nothing. the second person, uses a computer and finishes the job in a manner of seconds. his labor costs are next to nothing so his profit is nearly 100 dollars. which person was being exploited?
cristoballs 4 months ago
@cristoballs Profit does indicate which companies are successful at delivering goods to the public (in free markets) but you still haven't proven to me how it is not theft or exploitation.
Your example did not have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I am talking about exploitation within companies. Exploitation cannot be found in self-employment as there is no bourgeois class extracting surplus from a proletarian class.
Use another example to explain your point (if you have one).
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "you still haven't proven to me how it is not theft or exploitation."
you haven't given any reason for me to believe any theft has taken place. where are you getting this idea that free markets work on theft? as for exploitation, i understand there's a negative association with the word in moral sense, but the definition of the word doesn't say anything about morality. are immigrant workers exploited for cheap labor? sure. but they also exploit employers for better wages. (cont.)
cristoballs 4 months ago
@cristoballs if immigrants were not getting better wages here than what they would receive working in the home country, there would be no reason to immigrate. you're making it sound as if only the employer benefits from exploiting cheap labor. if both parties (employers and labor) willfully agree to an exchange of labor for pay, then there is nothing wrong with that.
cristoballs 4 months ago
@cristoballs The excess surplus which the capitalist extracts belongs to everyone not just him as he is not the only person creating that surplus.
Exploitation indicates unfair conditions for some. Human beings are born equal and should have OPPORTUNITY to live in fair conditions.
Every worker is being exploited in capitalism no matter how good the conditions are.
(cont.)
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn You and others make the same mistake by not looking at the bigger picture.No matter where you work in capitalism you are FORCED to work in exploited conditions as there are NO options for u to work in a place where you get fair pay.You think that just b/c a worker chooses to work at a certain company in a capitalist society he has complete freedom.He does not have freedom.Capitalists take his COMPLETE freedom away by not offering up fair pay to workers.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn i'm not forced to work anywhere. i choose to work because it provides a better alternative than not working. even if you were on a deserted island, you have a choice whether or not to work. if you sit around and do nothing, you will die very quickly of starvation. if you have to climb a tree to get food, that's work. it just so happens your reward for your labor is much greater under capitalism than anywhere else in the world.
cristoballs 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ImAznnn "The excess surplus which the capitalist extracts belongs to everyone not just him as he is not the only person creating that surplus."
now you're just being ridiculous. if i invest my money in a company, in which i'm willing to bear all the financial risks, then i'm entitled to all the potential rewards that come with that company. are you suggesting that the risks are evenly distributed, among labor as well? (cont.)
cristoballs 4 months ago
@cristoballs if you're working for a company. and it operates at a loss, you may lose your job, but that's all you'll lose. you'll still collect pay for the time you worked at the rate you agreed to work for. you're not responsible for paying for any of the losses of the company. thus, you're not entitled to any of the gains the company receives either.
cristoballs 4 months ago
@ImAznnn Then what is fair pay for a capitalist? What is fair pay for a worker? What about them makes it fair?
"...only human labor adds value."
No. Value is based on perception. One could work all day digging holes. They could work hard with their heart in it, but that doesn't change the value of the hole. Perhaps if someone wants a well dug the hole could be valuable, but that is based entirely on the customer's perception. Labor must conform to that.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Fair pay for capitalist = money for maintenance + money for his labor. Right now it's money for maintenance + money for his labor + unused surplus (which belongs to everyone).
Utility only tells us whether or not value exists within a product; it doesn't dictate the exact value as it doesn't enhance the product in any way. However, we're assuming utility in products. The value depends on the average labor time required to make the product.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "The value depends on the average labor time required to make the product."
No, it doesn't. Labor time has absolutely nothing to do with value, regardless of whether or not utility itself is assumed. I could throw out all the machines and work hard at making a sort of cutting tool, but that doesn't make it more valuable than one made in seconds with the push of a button. One that is probably more precise than the one I made.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn Machines cut down on labor time. What of those? If I use a machine to make a product does that make it less valuable? I'm spending less time on it, and using less "labor." We strive to cut down on labor as much as possible. Why do that if labor is what gives value? It is because value does not come from labor, it comes from perception. Prices themselves come from the general perception of the market. Labor is simply a tool in the process. It does not inherently give value.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "Fair pay for capitalist = money for maintenance + money for his labor"
That's nonsense. First of all, who are you to say what is fair pay? Fairness is determined through voluntary interaction between the parties making the trade. That, and there is more to production than labor. You need capital. Money to pay for everything. The initial wages, the machines, the factories, etc... This is separate from labor and yet it enhances production. Workers don't have the money for the
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn machines they use. They work for others because those tools and the organization itself is handed to them. Alone they may produce but one shoe a day, but in a factory they could produce more. Many more.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "Right now it's money for maintenance + money for his labor + unused surplus (which belongs to everyone)."
Really? So why does it belong to everyone? The capitalist owns the business (I'm going to exclude investors here because that would make this unnecessarily complicated). He started it, or perhaps inherited it, so what about it makes it "everyone's?"
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@TheMoriMaster If labor doesn't dictate the exact value then I guess the products are really just poofing out of thin air aren't they?
Machines make products less valuable yes. But keep in mind here is a difference between value and price.
Fair pay is when the workers gets paid exactly according to how much value he is producing.
It doesn't matter who started the company. If the capitalist earns $2 while doing 1 unit of work and the worker earns $1 while doing 2 units. How is capitalism fair?
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "If labor doesn't dictate the exact value then I guess the products are really just poofing out of thin air aren't they?"
So now would be a good time to tell me where exactly I said that labor doesn't exist.
Let's say I spent a lot of "labor units" on making a widget, but nobody wants my widget. Would my widget be valuable? No, because value comes from the perception of the buyers. What if you're a millionaire dying of thirst in the desert? How much would water be worth to you?(Cont)
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn I'd guess you would pay anything for water at that point. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because you think it's worth the money. And even then, what of raw materials that have had no labor go into them? Are they all worthless?
"Machines make products less valuable yes. But keep in mind here is a difference between value and price."
No, they don't. All they do is produce MORE OF the product. Abundance plays a large part in determining value. Rare metals are valuable because they
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn are rare. Not because a worker worked hard to extract it.
"Fair pay is when the workers gets paid exactly according to how much value he is producing."
Again, who are you to determine what is fair in a voluntary trade that you have no part in? Restating it doesn't answer this question.
"It doesn't matter who started the company."
I'm guessing you also don't care about who owns the factory either then? Is private property just a joke to you?
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "If the capitalist earns $2 while doing 1 unit of work and the worker earns $1 while doing 2 units. How is capitalism fair?"
What if I dig some holes in my backyard and work real hard at it. Do I deserve money simply for exerting myself? Am I entitled to it? Earnings doesn't come from how hard you work. Earnings come from how useful you are. How useful you are is determined through trade. Why do you think the worker can do 2 units of work? What if he was on his own, no exploitation?
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@TheMoriMaster "Earnings doesn't come from how hard you work. Earnings come from how useful you are."
Why is it that the majority of farmers are very poor. Society simply would NOT be able to survive without them. Society can however survive without lawyers, financial brokers, accountants, etc.
We can't survive without farmers, carpenters, doctors, dentists, electricians and various other trades.
EquitesVeritatis 1 month ago in playlist Those who indoctrinate the pansy ass American apologists.
@ImAznnn Do you think he would keep up that production without the tools he used? Doubtful. Artisans died out for that very reason. The average factory worker cannot be expected to buy all the machines he needs. That, and all the other people he needs, what with the division of labor. This is what the capitalist trades for his labor. A wage and the tools he needs, the people he needs, the factory he needs to make his work easier, simpler, and more productive.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@ImAznnn Judging such matters by labor alone disregards all the other parts played in economics. Especially in the system of yours by which the capitalist has no right to the property he bought with his own earnings or from a loan that he will be expected to repay. Instead the workers are somehow entitled to his property. Keep in mind capitalism is a completely voluntary system. All trades must be agreed upon by both parties. It baffles me how you think you have the right to coerce either party.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
Comment removed
mrrobotica 3 months ago
@ImAznnn Not to mention these people are bargaining voluntarily (Assuming a free market). What gives you or anyone else the right to put a gun to one of their heads and force them to change their offer?
As for profit, how is it theft in the first place? These people are acting of their own volition. Theft is only theft when consent is not given, and if consent is not given in this situation, then either of them can simply reject the other. There is no coercive force involved.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@TheMoriMaster This again goes back to my point about how people are not free in a capitalist if they're forced to work below fair pay.
No matter where you go in a capitalist society you won't find a company that offers fair pay to its workers. Why? Because capitalism is all about profit and the exploitation of workers.
Capitalism is based off of theft. It's just that your not looking at the bigger picture.
ImAznnn 4 months ago
@ImAznnn "This again goes back to my point about how people are not free in a capitalist if they're forced to work below fair pay."
Because they don't own the businesses in which they work. They are trading. There are multiple sides to a trade, and thus the traders must make a compromise. This is the compromise. All of it is completely voluntary; nobody is compelled by the force of a gun like what you're proposing.